Skip to main content
Log in

Measuring Inconsistency in Some Logics with Modal Operators

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The first mention of the concept of an inconsistency measure for sets of formulas in first-order logic was given in 1978, but that paper presented only classifications for them. The first actual inconsistency measure with a numerical value was given in 2002 for sets of formulas in propositional logic. Since that time, researchers in logic and AI have developed a substantial theory of inconsistency measures. While this is an interesting topic from the point of view of logic, an important motivation for this work is also that some intelligent systems may encounter inconsistencies in their operation. This research deals primarily with propositional knowledge bases, that is, finite sets of propositional logic formulas. The goal of this paper is to extend the concept of inconsistency measure in a formal way to sets of formulas with the modal operators “necessarily” and “possibly” applied to propositional logic formulas. We use frames for the semantics, but in a way that is different from the way that frames are commonly used in modal logics, in order to facilitate measuring inconsistency. As a set of formulas may have different inconsistency measures for different frames, we define the concept of a standard frame that can be used for all finite sets of formulas in the language. We do this for two languages. The first language, AMPL, contains formulas where a prefix of operators is applied to a propositional logic formula. The second language, CMPL, adds connectives that can be applied to AMPL formulas in a limited way. We show how to extend propositional logic inconsistency measures to such sets of formulas. Finally, we define a new concept, weak inconsistency measure, and show how to compute it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Besnard, Ph., and J. Grant, Relative inconsistency measures, Artificial Intelligence 280:103231, 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

  3. DeBona, G., J. Grant, A. Hunter, and S. Konieczny, Classifying inconsistency measures using graphs, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 66:937–987, 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grant, J., Classifications for inconsistent theories, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic XIX:435–444, 1978.

  5. Knight, K. M., Measuring inconsistency, Journal of Philosophical Logic 31:77–98, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Priest, G., The logic of paradox, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8:219–241, 1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thimm, M., On the evaluation of inconsistency measures, in J. Grant and M. V. Martinez (eds.), Measuring Inconsistency in Information, College Publications, 2018, pp. 169–194.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the reviewers for very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Grant.

Additional information

In Memoriam Bolesław Sobociński (1906–1980)

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

I am grateful to Professor Sobociński, who as the Editor-In-Chief of the Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic in the 1970s helped me publish several papers including reference [4].

Presented by Heinrich Wansing

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grant, J. Measuring Inconsistency in Some Logics with Modal Operators. Stud Logica 109, 581–605 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-020-09917-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-020-09917-y

Keywords

Navigation